On Fri, 5 Sep 2014, Behan Webster wrote:I suppose "Reviewed-by" is probably more appropriate for the last 2 then. Will fix.
On 09/05/14 17:18, Thomas Gleixner wrote:No. Read #12
"The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in theSigned-off-by: Behan Webster <behanw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>This SOB chain is completely ass backwards. See Documentation/...
Signed-off-by: Mark Charlebois <charlebm@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Jan-Simon MÃller <dl9pf@xxxxxx>
development of the patch, or that he/she was in the patch's delivery path."
All three of us were involved. Does that not satisfy this rule?
The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for the
patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have the right to
pass it on as an open-source patch.
So the above chain says:
Written-by: Behan
Passed-on-by: Mark
Passed-on-by: Jan
That would be correct if you sent the patch to Mark, Mark sent it to
Jan and Jan finally submitted it to LKML.
I see. I thought you meant a more fundamental change to the crypto system API. My misunderstanding.Errm. Why isSadly this is a design pattern used in many places through out the kernel, and- struct {That anon struct should have never happened in the first place.
- struct shash_desc shash;
- char ctx[crypto_shash_descsize(tfm)];
- } desc;
+ char desc[sizeof(struct shash_desc) +
+ crypto_shash_descsize(tfm)] CRYPTO_MINALIGN_ATTR;
+ struct shash_desc *shash = (struct shash_desc *)desc;
appears to be fundamental to the crypto system. I was advised *not* to change
it, so we haven't.
I agree that it's not a good practice.
NotNothing is wrong with that. I would have actually preferred that. But it would
your problem, but you are not making it any better. You replace open
coded crap with even more unreadable crap.
Whats wrong with
SHASH_DESC_ON_STACK(shash, tfm);
have fundamentally changed a lot more code.
#define SHASH_DESC_ON_STACK(shash, tfm) \
char __shash[sizeof(.....)]; \
struct shash_desc *shash = (struct shash_desc *) __shash
requiring more fundamental than open coding the same thing a gazillion
times. You still need to change ALL usage sides of the anon struct.
So in fact you could avoid the whole code change by making it
SHASH_DESC_ON_STACK(desc, tfm);
and do the anon struct or a proper struct magic in the macro.